Other conditions decisions — 2006

The Board found that the veteran's current left eye disability is not related to his inservice surgery for strabismus, and thus denied service connection.

The Board finds that the veteran does not have a current respiratory disorder related to asbestos exposure in service and therefore denies his claim for service connection.

The Board found that the overpayment of $8,865.24 was properly created due to the veteran's failure to notify VA of his incarceration. The Board also determined that recovery of this overpayment would not violate principles of equity and good conscience.

The Board found that the veteran's multiple mononeuropathies were not incurred in or aggravated by active service and denied his claim.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for residuals of a fractured nose and residuals of a dental injury from trauma, finding that there was no evidence to support these claims.

The Board found that the veteran's disabilities of the third, fourth and fifth fingers of the left hand were not incurred in or aggravated by service. The veteran also does not have a left arm disability attributable to service.

The Board is remanding the case to determine whether the veteran's service in Vietnam qualifies for presumptive exposure to Agent Orange, and if so, whether his lung cancer can be attributed to this exposure. The VA will also seek additional medical opinions on the cause of the veteran's death.

The veteran's skin disability of the hands and feet is currently rated at 10 percent, but does not meet the criteria for a higher rating under either the old or new VA Rating Schedule.

The Board has determined that there is no medical evidence of a nexus between the veteran's cold weather injury residuals and his service, thus denying the claim.

The VA determined that the veteran did not suffer from additional disability as a result of VA surgery in September and December 2000, and thus denied his claim for compensation benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current peripheral neuropathy of the feet is related to his exposure to cold weather during service, and thus grants service connection for residuals of cold injury to both feet.

The VA determined that the veteran's service-connected fracture of the left pubic and ischial rami does not warrant an increased evaluation, as it only produces minimal functional impairment.

The Board found no persuasive evidence suggesting the veteran's skin condition originated in service or is otherwise causally related to his military service, including due to exposure to herbicides such as Agent Orange. The claim for service connection was denied.

The Board found that the veteran knowingly submitted evidence containing false information in support of his claim for spousal dependent pension benefits, leading to a forfeiture of all rights, claims, and benefits under VA laws.

The veteran's service connection for porphyria cutanea tarda due to exposure to Agent Orange was granted, but the RO later severed this service connection. The claim for an initial compensable rating is denied as there is no legal basis for a retroactive increase after proper severance of service connection.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded due to procedural issues and the need for additional evidence, including his VA vocational rehabilitation and counseling file, Social Security Administration records, and recent treatment records from Atlanta VA Medical Center.

The veteran is seeking service connection for a chronic skin disorder, which he claims was caused by exposure to herbicides during his military service. The case has been remanded due to the need for additional medical opinions and information regarding treatment history.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including providing notice regarding service connection and effective dates.

The appellant's claim for recognition as the veteran's surviving spouse for the purpose of entitlement to DIC is denied because her marriage was legally terminated by divorce prior to the veteran's death.

The appellant seeks disability benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for additional disability resulting from an angioplasty performed by VA in January 2002, alleging that the procedure aggravated his pre-existing heart condition and that there was negligence on the part of VA personnel.